Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreDr. T.P. Senkumar, an IPS officer, was appointed Kerala's State Police Chief (Director General of Police) in May 2015, with a guaranteed minimum two-year tenure under Section 97 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. In June 2016, shortly after a new State Government took office, he was abruptly transferred out to a non-police post, with the government citing "serious public dissatisfaction" over police handling of two incidents: the Puttingal Temple fire tragedy and the Jisha murder case. His challenges before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Kerala High Court were both rejected, leading him to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that a State Police Chief's protected tenure (established to insulate the post from political interference, per the Court's earlier Prakash Singh guidelines on police reforms) can only be cut short on cogent, rational material showing genuine public dissatisfaction, not a bare assertion of dissatisfaction or newspaper reports. Examining the record, the Court found no credible material against Senkumar: the allegations relating to the two incidents had lain dormant for over a month and resurfaced only after the new government took office, and the specific charge that he interfered with an investigation was found "far-fetched" and unsupported by evidence. The Court concluded he had been dealt with unfairly and arbitrarily, set aside the Tribunal's order, the High Court's judgment, and the transfer order itself, and directed the Kerala Government to reinstate him as State Police Chief. The appeal was allowed.
A government cannot remove a public official from a tenure-protected post merely by invoking "public dissatisfaction" in the abstract: any such subjective satisfaction must rest on real, demonstrable material that can withstand judicial scrutiny, not vague or after-the-fact justifications.
